Classification Based On Sex Permissible If Founded On Additional Considerations: Kerala High Court Upholds Free KSRTC Travel Scheme For Women, Transgender Persons

The Court was hearing a public interest litigation challenging the Government Order dated 11.06.2026, whereby the State of Kerala extended free travel in ordinary KSRTC buses to all women and transgender persons with effect from 15.06.2026. The petitioner contended that the scheme violated Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution by granting benefits solely based on sex without any intelligible differentia or rational nexus to a constitutional objective.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. observed: "… if there is discrimination in favour of a particular sex, that discrimination would be permissible, provided it is not only on the ground of sex. In other words, a classification on the ground of sex is permissible, provided such classification is a result of other considerations besides the fact that the person belonging to that class is of a particular sex."

Senior Advocate General K. Jaju Babu appeared for the State, while Advocate B.S. Swathi Kumar appeared for KSRTC. The petitioner was represented by Advocate M.P. Shameem.

Background

The petitioner, claiming to be a public-spirited citizen and taxpayer, challenged the Government Order implementing the "Priyadarshini Scheme", under which free travel in ordinary KSRTC buses was extended to all women and transgender persons across the State.

It was contended that the scheme had been introduced without any empirical study or material demonstrating that the beneficiary class suffered a disadvantage warranting such a benefit. The petitioner argued that the classification was over-inclusive as it extended benefits to all women irrespective of their economic, social or educational status and lacked a rational nexus with the stated objective of empowerment.

The State defended the scheme as a welfare measure intended to facilitate unrestricted mobility, increase employment opportunities and promote the economic and social empowerment of women and transgender persons. It was further submitted that the entire financial burden of the scheme would be borne by the State Government.

Court's Observations

At the outset, the Court examined the scope of judicial review in matters involving governmental policy decisions. Referring to decisions of the Supreme Court, the Bench reiterated that courts ordinarily do not sit in judgment over the wisdom or desirability of welfare schemes and may interfere only when a policy is unconstitutional or contrary to statutory provisions.

The Court observed: "It is thus trite that when the purpose of the scheme is to enforce the Directive Principles of State Policy, enshrined in the Constitution, it is not for the court to interfere or sit in judgment over the question as to whether and in what way the State has to choose the Directive Principles of State Policy and how schemes for implementing the same are to be worded or executed."

Addressing the principal challenge under Articles 14 and 15, the Court rejected the contention that the scheme discriminated solely on the basis of sex. Relying upon the decision in Dattatraya Motiram More v. State of Bombay, the Bench held that Article 15(3) permits special provisions in favour of women and that discrimination in favour of women is constitutionally permissible when founded upon broader welfare considerations.

The Court found that the Government Order itself disclosed the objectives sought to be achieved through the scheme, namely facilitating unrestricted travel for women, increasing their participation in society, expanding employment opportunities and advancing their economic and social empowerment.

The Bench observed: "If the Government has discriminated in favour of women and transgender persons by extending free travel in Ordinary KSRTC buses, it is not only on the grounds that they are women or transgender, but on various other considerations and factors."

Referring to the objectives stated in the Government Order, the Court further noted: "As is specifically pointed out in Exhibit P1 G.O., the avowed objective is to 'create an opportunity for all women in the society to travel without any restrictions, thereby building a fully participatory and energetic society and through this making possible an increase in employment opportunities for women along with their economic and social empowerment.'"

The Court also emphasised that economic empowerment of women and protection of women's rights form part of the constitutional scheme and the Directive Principles of State Policy. Consequently, policy measures aimed at achieving those objectives are entitled to considerable judicial deference.

The Bench observed: "When the State evolves scheme towards materialising such avowed constitutional goals and proceeds to implement them, such policy decisions cannot be subjected to judicial review."

Rejecting the argument that the absence of empirical studies rendered the scheme unconstitutional, the Court held that welfare measures intended to advance socio-economic objectives fall within the policy domain of the Government and cannot be invalidated merely because the petitioner believes a different model ought to have been adopted.

The Court further held that challenges based on financial implications were equally unsustainable. It noted that the Government Order specifically provided that the entire financial expenditure of the scheme would be borne by the State and that KSRTC's operational requirements would be safeguarded. The Court observed that it was not for the judiciary to evaluate the prudence of such fiscal decisions.

Ultimately, the Bench concluded: "Petitioner has failed to point out any inherent unconstitutionality in the issuance and implementation of Exhibit P1 G.O. There is nothing before us to term Exhibit P1 G.O. as contrary to any statutory norms or as being perverse or illegal."

Conclusion

Holding that the free travel scheme for women and transgender persons was a policy decision aimed at advancing socio-economic empowerment and that no constitutional or statutory infirmity had been established, the Kerala High Court dismissed the public interest litigation challenging the "Priyadarshini Scheme".

Cause Title: Muhammed Firdouz v. State of Kerala & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:44884)

Appearances

Petitioner: Advocates M.P. Shameem Ahamed, Ahamed Iqbal and Shabnam Kodalil.

Respondents: Senior Advocate General K. Jaju Babu for the State of Kerala; B.S. Swathi Kumar for KSRTC.

Click here to read/download Judgment